Caesarion was taught the mystery schools of Egypt by Cleopatra and sent to India where he learned eastern Mysticism and the legend of Jesus was based off of his spiritual journey. In India, Caesarion was known as Issa, lol.

Here's a *totally* reputable website that explains this theory:

http://coolinterestingstuff.com/cons...aesarion-jesus

Well, all of the theories such as that are fringe theories since the most accepted one, of course, is that of him being a Judaic religious figure, lol.

Just to calm things down a bit, as per Encyclopedia Brittanica, the abridged story of Caesarion who died at the hands of Caesar (Octavian), as per the reference, at 30 BCE .

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Caesarion

From a religious and non-religious perspective Splendour is just plain wrong. He makes a questionable point about martyrdom being proof of religious sovereignty, but then disregards other cases of martyrdom for other religions. What about during the holy wars? Convert to Christianity or die? Some people did, but guess what... some people didn't. Does that make them a martyr? Yes. Does that prove their religion to be true? No.

Now Splendour makes a post about how using your brain is bad. That is cult mentality right there; Never questioning your beliefs. Feeling shame for being curious. Being trapped in the box you've built for yourself.

So-called "Christians" who provoked holy wars, crusades, and forced conversions were being disobedient to the teachings of the Jesus that they claimed to follow.

On the other hand, some Muslims interpret their Koran to imply that the killing of non-Muslims in a holy war will assure them a place in heaven.

My point is that Christians who murder unbelievers are being disobedient to their faith, while Muslims who murder unbelievers of their faith are actually being obedient to their faith (at least based on some interpretations).

While I'm not taking taking the position that martyrdom "proves" that any religion is true, I believe it is worth noting that true Christian martyrs died without the expectation of any special reward in heaven (because these martyrs were already convinced of their eternal destination), while Muslim martyrs (who were unsure of their "salvation") would die in a holy war to in their minds guarantee eternal rewards.

I was referring to the people not converting being martyrs, not the people with the sword. I only used "convert to Christianity or die" as an example to show that Muslims and Jews would choose death over committing to a faith they don't believe in as well as Christians.

I don't believe that Christians are as confident about their salvation as they'd like others to believe. In fact, I'd argue that the more religious someone is the more fearful they are of death and possibly going to hell.

I think that Christianity becoming so popular partly shows how miserable the lives of peasants were in the past. They were willing to full-heartedly believe in something just to make their lives more bearable which is that, in the end, Salvation is waiting for them. A non-religious example is the Taiping Rebellion where the peasants were recruited in droves because of the promise of a planned paradisal place that they might reside in and they because zealous fighters for this dream.

There are good reasons why this is a terrible historical analysis.

And you failed to name them. Why?

I failed to name them because they're really quite apparent when you stop and think about it (or perhaps take the time to look up actual historical analyses). Your analysis is pretty bad on its face and reads as someone who is speculating on a historical time period which they know very little about.

Among the reasons why you're probably wrong is the fact that if it were really driven by hope for peasants, then it is incredibly unlikely to have spread as quickly as it did. Indeed, Christianity spread so quickly because it spread through trade routes and port cities. Although there were certainly poor among the converts, the spreading probably would not have come primarily through the peasant class as that would require substantial mobility.

Perhaps if you took some time to Google the question and find some reputable historians commenting on it you might find that you're doing better than simply picking ideas off the top of your head.

While I agree with you that infrastructure (especially Roman and Roman-inspired infrastructure) helped spread Christianity, I do think that Christianity has an appeal to the poor sections of society which shouldn't be overlooked. Jesus is in the Bible a hero of sorts to the downtrodden.

I don't deny that it had appeal to poor sections of society. One of the reasons it did has less to do with the abstract long term hope, but because Christianity provided direct support to the poor.

For example:

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...hy/appeal.html

Here's the second sentence of the poster's analysis:

The thing that made their lives more bearable was the creation of a social support structure to help them with their lives, not because life was so bad that abstract hope made life bearable.

But it's worth noting that the financing for the social support networks couldn't have come from just the peasant class, as the peasant class didn't have the financial means to create such a safety net. There were plenty of people with means who helped to finance those structures. It's clearly insufficient to say "their lives were so miserable" when you include that there was appeal to people whose lives weren't that miserable.

The relief of poverty to a certain extent certainly helped the poor but the belief in a salvation, also did, too. If you want someone credible that says it then it is Napoleon Bonaparte. He said that he liked Christianity because it kept the lower classes content with their lot in life because they had salvation to look forward to. Napoleon probably meant that it kept them from being rebellious or more rebellious.

I don't deny that. But your argument was terrible and doesn't support your thesis. I'll break it down for you sentence-by-sentence.

No. The popularity of Christianity doesn't count as evidence of "how miserable the lives of peasants were in the past." Yes, they didn't live great lives. No, Christianity's popularity is absurdly weak evidence of that.

This is also a poor historical analysis. The assertion that they believed "just to make their lives more bearable [because] Salvation is waiting for them" is false. The reason for belief was much more than "just to make their lives more bearable" on the basis of abstract future salvation. It's clearly the case that present tense concerns dominated. Yes, there was some sense of abstract hope in the future, but abstract hope is not enough. (Especially considering that the early church was persecuted and Christians were viewed with fear and disdain.)

So... while I admit I don't know much about Chinese history, it seems really strange that you're claiming that a political uprising is evidence of support of a "planned paradisal place" as the driving mechanism. Doesn't the the fact that they were taking political/militaristic action imply that there was a very real place that they were trying to create?

Also, at least at a cursory glance, I see very few parallels in the structure of early Christianity and in the Taiping Rebellion. Early Christianity was relatively docile. It simply existed within the political structure without trying to overturn it. It did certainly upset the social structures by claiming to bring together cultures that have historically been against each other. And it wasn't a unified local movement, especially after it got scattered under persecution.

----

LOL -- Because Napoleon Bonaparte is a renowned historian that is known for insightful analysis of religion in first century Rome? This isn't helping you argue that you actually know what you're talking about here.

You're welcome to try to interpret Napoleon however you choose. But if I were you, I wouldn't use that as support for your argument regarding the historical accuracy of your basic claim.

@Aaron W. Sentence 1: How do you arrive at your claim about my Sentence 1 claim? You didn't provide any support.
Sentence 2: I didn't say that in order to make their lives more bearable was the sole reason for their belief. I said that it was partly the reason or one of their reasons but it was a big part of it for the peasants, the new converts.
Sentence 3: A "planned paradise-like place" can be a real place or a non-real one.
Napoleon knows how Christianity effects the peasantry during his time. That's what I was talking about.

I could say the same of you. But unlike you, I provided a link to information provided by experts and none of that remotely points towards your explanation as being a primary driver of religious adherence.

You're not helping yourself here. If by "partly" you mean "pretty much negligibly" then sure. The problem you have is that it's not like Christianity was the *ONLY* religion that offered abstract future hope. "Salvation in the end." For example, there was the cult of Isis and Mithraism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isis

http://www.isvroma.it/public/pecus/nasstrom.pdf

So the facts do not support that this appeal is anything special and thus provides little support for the adherence to Christianity that is observed.

Right... Because this broadening of your position makes it stronger? Or better? That the best thing you have in a parallel between two movements is that both have a "planned paradise-like place" to inspire belief, where "planned paradise-like place" means an either real or imagined place in the future? Why not just go full Godwin and say that Christians were just like the Nazis in this respect?

Because you know that 100% of the time when political leaders make claims that they're accurate and don't reflect any type of internal biases of presuppositions about the world. Just ask Trump.

Wouldn't it be just more intellectually honest to just admit you did zero research into the question and that you were merely speculating off the top of your head, so that you can actually learn something from this interaction as opposed to looking like a stubborn idiot?

^ @Aaron W. You are the one that looks like a stubborn idiot. I made good points and you are just too stubborn to give them any merit. You are too close-minded to debate with. You just want to hear the sound of your own voice. Get off of your high-horse, dude and quit putting yourself on such a high pedestal. You act like your fart don't stink.

Nah. When you accuse me of not providing support for my argument when I'm the only one who has linked to anything from an expert, you lose all credibility. You could easily have provided a link to a historian making your argument if you had a reasonable point. You haven't. I wonder why.

The "merit" of your argument is what, exactly? The repeated assertion that the abstract concept of salvation at some point in the future is what made Christianity popular? Some comparison with a political movement in China whose only similarity is that your concept of an abstract concept of salvation can include both literal and imagined futures?

My farts stink something foul. But that observation doesn't negate the fact that you've put forth nothing of intellectual merit in your argument.

/Jesus Christ

http://www.johnleary.com/index.php/p...t=3&order=DESC

remind them of the first Christians who loved Me more than their own life;

http://www . tl ig.org/en/messages/115/


The Truth comes from God. The Truth will live on to the end of time. The Truth w
ill be revealed in its entirety, soon, and then it will cut through the hearts o
f those who refused My Hand of intervention. Then, My Army will rise together in the Glory of God to proclaim the True Word of God until the last day. They will bring with them the souls of pagans who will realise that there is only one God. It will not be the pagans who will not accept Me. Instead, it will be the souls of Christians who were given the Truth but who will fall into grave error. It is for these Christian souls that I pine for the most and it is for them that I ask you to pray, every hour of the day.

Your Beloved Jesus
https://fatherofloveandmercy.wordpre...east-expect-2/

http://www.notebook44.strefa.pl/jan_8.htm



I John 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.